Yep. This Is What Obama Needs to Say.

September 16th, 2012

An Obama Ad which hits the mark:

It has all the elements on the key issue, the economy. It answers the 4-years-ago question just well enough for people to remember without getting too bogged down in details. It mentions the hemorrhage of jobs in 2008 and the growth (though tepid) since; it fails to mention the effect of the stimulus directly, but it is implied. It then paints the differing plans, again hitting the key points. This is a well-planned and -crafted ad. Yes, it glosses over the down points, but that’s what campaign ads do—but even on this point, it does the rare campaign trick: admit you haven’t done as well you you intended while still not sounding like it was a failure. Obama can thank Clinton for planting that seed.

What it does, most importantly, is to win the argument on the economy. That was Romney’s only real hope: blame Obama for the recession. It was, in fact, the Republican Party’s chief goal, as you recall. But here we have Obama beating Romney on that, and it reflects in the polls, which show no advantage for Romney on the issue. Republicans have, amazingly, lost their advantage on security, the military, and foreign affairs as well. The GOP led us in to the recession, into huge debt, and into two massive, costly, and lengthy land wars in Asia while governing over a time of fear and crisis. For all the lingering pain, it’s felt better under Obama, and bringing Clinton out reminds us of the 90′s, now almost a golden age. Obama can say he’s brought back job growth, rescued Detroit, ended the Iraq war, killed bin Laden and brought down Gaddafi. What’s left for Republicans to attack against? Obama can even go on the offensive in these areas, most bitingly against Romney’s tax plans.

Romney would certainly deny that he is planning the tax hike for the middle class, so you could conceivably call Obama’s claim in the ad a “misrepresentation”—but certainly not a “lie,” and I would even argue the term “misrepresentation.” Romney promised deficit-neutral tax breaks for the rich which, mathematically, can only be achieved with the tax hike on the middle class. Romney denies this, claiming that economic growth will magically rocket upwards to a point where all the money falling from the sky will make the break deficit-friendly, but that’s BS. And Romney has failed to take back his pledge about the tax break. Ergo, he may not be directly proposing a tax hike and may utterly deny it, but it is the certain result if he keeps his promises. If I say I will drive my car off a cliff by deny it will crash in the ravine below due to magical flying abilities, it is safe for others to claim that I propose to crash my car in the ravine.

Good ad. The truth will stick. Hopefully the republican faithful will stay home on election day.

I’d like to see an ad with a piece in it from Clinton’s speech: “they ruined the economy, so their argument is, we didn’t clean itup quick enough, so no put us back in charge” – paraphrased from memory.

There is no functional difference between the current 53-47 split and a 50-50 split, as long as Biden is the tie-breaker.
Hell yes, there is. Lieberman is one of those fifty, and there are still Blue Dogs on the left side of the aisle. You may recall that even when Dems had a supermajority for a short time, they still had to contend with right-leaning Dems who felt that milking the cow for themselves was more important than party unity and getting the job done. The Dems will want to take every seat they can; each one could make a huge difference.

But only if the Dems stop being idiots and rewrite the rules on the filibuster. If they don’t, then that is what will make the number meaningless.

Yeah I actually thought about that before saying that . . . Lieberman is leaving, as is Nelson (as is Snowe on the Republican side). 2010 purged Lincoln and Bayh. . .

Nelson and Lieberman were the major dicks, but the center-right still has full control of the Senate, though it is fair to say that if there were even a 51 or 52 majority obstructionism would be harder.

Thing is, with the Republicans running the House, all we can hope for /is/ obstructionism.

Obama may get 2 more supreme court nominations, and that’s going to be tough. . .